A month ago AMD introduced the world’s first quad-core processor to debut at $99. Last week, AMD announced its third quarter earnings for 2009. While the company as a whole lost money, the Product Company (CPU and GPU design) turned a small profit. I don’t want to say that the worst is behind AMD, but things are definitely looking up.

Income

Q3 2009

Q2 2009

Q1 2009

AMD

-$128 Million

-$330 Million

-$416 Million

AMD Product Company

+$2 Million

-$244 Million

-$308 Million

And for the consumer, AMD is providing a ton of value these days. You're getting more transistors per dollar than Intel will give you, and it's not just bloat, these things are fast:

Processor

Cores

Manufacturing Process

L1 Cache

L2 Cache

L3 Cache

Die Size

Transistor Count

AMD Phenom II X4

4

45nm

128KB per core

512KB per core

6MB

258 mm2

758M

AMD Athlon II X4/X3

4

45nm

128KB per core

512KB per core

0MB

169 mm2

300M

AMD Athlon II X2

2

45nm

128KB per core

1MB per core

0MB

117 mm2

234M

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8xxx

4

45nm

64KB per core

4MB

0MB

164 mm2

456M

Intel Pentium E6xxx

2

45nm

64KB per core

2MB

0MB

82 mm2

228M

The value train continues with todays introduction of the first triple core Athlon II processors: the Athlon II X3 435 and 425. Clocked at 2.9GHz and 2.7GHz respectively, these processors are simply Athlon II X4s with one core disabled.

They’re also quite affordable. The 435 will set you back $87 while the 425 costs $76. This puts them on par with Intel’s Pentium E6000 series dual core processors, but cheaper than the Core 2 Duo E7500. This has been AMD’s high end dual core strategy for the Phenom’s life: sell three cores for the price of two. And in the past, it has worked.

Processor

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

L3 Cache

TDP

Price

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE

3.4GHz

2MB

6MB

140W

$245

AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE

3.2GHz

2MB

6MB

125W

$245

AMD Phenom II X4 945

3.0GHz

2MB

6MB

125W

$225

AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE

2.8GHz

1.5MB

6MB

95W

$145

AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE

3.1GHz

1MB

6MB

80W

$105

AMD Athlon II X4 630

2.8GHz

2MB

0MB

95W

$122

AMD Athlon II X4 620

2.6GHz

2MB

0MB

95W

$99

AMD Athlon II X3 435

2.9GHz

1.5MB

0MB

95W

$87

AMD Athlon II X3 425

2.7GHz

1.5MB

0MB

95W

$76

AMD Athlon II X2 250

3.0GHz

2MB

0MB

65W

$87

AMD Athlon II X2 245

2.9GHz

2MB

0MB

65W

$66

AMD Athlon II X2 240

2.8GHz

2MB

0MB

65W

$60

The X3s AMD is announcing today are clocked high enough that you still have good performance in single threaded applications, and in those that can take advantage of three cores you’re almost guaranteed to have better performance than the Intel alternative.

The real question you have to ask is whether it makes more sense to spend a little more than get a quad-core processor or not.

The Athlon II X3s are 45nm 95W TDP parts and work in both Socket-AM2+ and Socket-AM3 motherboards. As I mentioned before, these are architecturally identical to the X4s just with one core disabled. That means you get a 512KB L2 per core but no L3 cache.

I’ll spoil the surprise for you here: they’re faster than the equivalently priced Intel CPUs in most cases, but that’s not too surprising.

The Athlon II X3 435 is a bit more overclockable than the X4 620. Without any additional voltage we got 3.25GHz on our 620 sample, but our 435 yielded 3.33GHz:

With an extra ~15% voltage we could get 3.63GHz:

AMD is also introducing a slew of energy efficient Athlon IIs as well. They’re all in the table below:

Processor

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

TDP

Price

Premium

AMD Athlon II X4 605e

2.3GHz

2MB

45W

$143

+$44

AMD Athlon II X4 600e

2.2GHz

2MB

45W

$133

+$34

AMD Athlon II X3 405e

2.3GHz

1.5MB

45W

$102

+$26

AMD Athlon II X3 400e

2.2GHz

1.5MB

45W

$97

+$21

AMD Athlon II X2 240e

2.8GHz

2MB

45W

$77

+$17

AMD Athlon II X2 235e

2.7GHz

2MB

45W

$69

+$9

These energy efficient processors are binned for lower voltages and thus have a 45W TDP. Unfortunately you do sacrifice clock speed in some cases as a result. There's also a hefty price premium, at the high end you lose clock speed and pay 44% more for a 45W TDP.

Game portfolio? To what? Unreal Tournament 1 or Maple Story? Not everyone enjoys running modern non-Crytek titles at 800x600 with the lowest possible settings either. There are plenty of people in the market who are willing to pay a very modest price for decently performing low-midrange hardware. Reply

Profit only works when the product sells. AMD has not created an image for itself amongst normal people. This is like the Wii vs the XBoX 360. No one cares about the XBox 360 even if it is a better value cause no one has hardly heard of it. The Wii is priced the same, performs far worse, and has far simpler games, but outsells because they found the market, and the market stays loyal.

And yes, I own an ATi Radeon HD 5770, so I am not an AMD Hater. I just wish that AMD would be competitive in ad campaigns. Get the word out!Reply

After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...

Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.

Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.

I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.

First off, is anyone from AT reading this? Why is that maddoctor guy not banned yet? He replies to every single post and is clogging the forum. As a matter of fact I think this new processor is totally pointless, but that guy is unbearably annoying to me. Just say what u want and shut up.

My personal opinion is that this is just another one of AMD marketing gimmicks of faking 'keep development going'. They have no development going. Nada. Zilch. They first development that will hit the market will be the Buldozer.

Tell me what performance or price gap did this processor fill? Tell me what justifies it's existence? No it is not faster than the E7500. Are you kidding me? Look at your own diagrams for one's sake. Oh, by the way the E7500 will OC to 4Ghz on air!

This processor offers NO exceptional value at all. Not compared to AMDs line, not compared to Intel's line. This is the truth, and AT knows it.

That said, I am not rooting for Intel at all. I have the brains to see what will happen if AMD runs out of blood, because it sure is hell is bleeding like crazy right now. It has been in the red for a long time, and intel again announced fat profits yesterday.

Most Core2Duo prices haven't decreased at all for the last year and a half. I hate Intel for that. Why don't they do it? E8500 still costs ridiculous $189. Because they don't have to. Because AMD still hasn't come up with anything better than the Core2Duo. THe best they can do is match it.

Also, I believe the people that read this forum are PC enthusiasts, and even if they don't make much money they will save until they can buy a descent component. Who in his right mind is gona buy this ridiculously crippled and handicapped garbage? Even if I build a PC for my mom, I will just get something basic for $50, not this grotesque $85 uselessness.

I just hope things turn around with the buldozer and Intel gets some REAL price pressure. Reply